are the next generation of directors gonna be hipsters?

i was thinking about how much has changed. Directors used to be scholarly, professional…you don’t see filmmakers like rossellini or bergman anymore.

^ Snobbery of the highest order.

What does that mean “are the next generation of directors gonna be hipsters?”, are you aware of all countries’ cinemas to say so?

Given the accessibility and available information the next generation can know more about the medium than any previous generation – that in itself seems stultifying.

Rossellini’s father owned the first cinema in Rome, so he pretty much literally grew up watching movies—he was the hipster of his day.

is that bad?

Mostly I just want to know what Johnny means by saying, “Directors used to be scholarly, professional.”

—PolarisDiB

I like that you said scholarly first.

to label a whole generation of nationalities, classes, ethnic groups in terms of filmmakers as either ‘hipsters’ or not ‘professional’ just misses the point entirely.

There will certainly be ‘hipster’ directors. And there are already ‘hipster’ directors.

^ From America most definitely but how can anyone judge other parts of the world and its filmographies without having indulged in them???

(assuming that a huge majority is acquainted enough with at least 50% of what’s going on with “American” cinema)

Pointless question to begin with.

There are serious new directors almost everywhere, but they are not getting enough attention. Perhaps their films are harder to find than films from what you call scholarly professional directors like Bergman, but the films are there. Dig on Netflix or Mubi and you’ll find several young good directors. If you wish I could give you a list of those so you recover your hope in today’s world.

I don’t think you can label a person ‘hipster’ or ‘professional’. People like Godard, Suzuki, and even Bergman were anything but professional when making their films. In the case of Godard and Suzuki, they constantly fought with their production companies over keeping their vision intact. As long as you have a vision, have technical know-how and know how to salvage what you need from your cast and crew, you will have an individual style… which is really all a director needs to set himself apart from the rest,

Adding to Brady’s comment, Godard even turned in a fake script to the producers of Alphaville that had nothing to do with what he had in mind for the film. Just to get the funds.

Before saying the next generation of directors will be hipsters, how about name a single “hipster” director? It’s hard enough defining what a “hipster” is anyway. The term “hepcat” is pretty much the same and that dates to the 1950’s…

So all directors internationally making films in the 50s were professional and scholarly?
lol what a heap of bullshit, wow Jonny, your stupid and apparently a national chauvinist; you certainly haven’t seen all contemporary international cinema if you had you wouldn’t imagine saying something so ignorant. Not to suggest I have, I absolutely haven’t (however much I’d love to) but I’m not stupid enough to write off all contemporary cinema.

Also beyond some absurd abstract stereotype, what the fuck is a ‘hipster’?

According to the “Urban Dictionary”:
Hipsters are a subculture of men and women typically in their 20’s and 30’s that value independent thinking, counter-culture, progressive politics, an appreciation of art and indie-rock, creativity, intelligence, and witty banter.

If this is the definition of Hipster than I wouldn’t speak of a new development here. The tradition of “scholarly filmmakers” as you call it is long over.

Anyway, “Hipster” is such a vague term. From my understanding serious filmmakers can be hipsters and vice versa.

According to the World English Dictionary, it’s: a youth of the 1950s, characterized by an interest in jazz and cool things.

In other words, there is no real definition of a hipster. Spirit’s definition is so general it could mean practically anyone. Hipsters have been around forever. Even in the 1950’s. It’s just that things get “old time-y” and lose the “hip” value they once had, therefore making them “campy” and ironically “hip” again.

to paraphrase Pauline Kael: hipsters are too busy calling themselves artists to have the patience to make art.

also, anyone who gets outraged at being called a hipster is probably a hipster.

yes, ‘hipsters’ love irony

-anyone who gets outraged at being called a hipster is probably a hipster-

Only a hipster would say something like that.

Dude, you have no divan.

Why is the girl above mocking hipsters for being ironic by ironically assuming their supposed persona?

I like how Johnny disappeared after tossing a meaningless question into our midst.

Hipsters is a meaningless word and possibly of interest only to advertisers as a niche demographic target.

“There’s a town I know where the hipsters go . . .”

Hipsters is a meaningless word and possibly of interest only to advertisers as a niche demographic target.

Don’t forget people who want to call others pretentious in that very unpretentious way that always accompanies broad, unprovoked insult.

I just wanted to say that “I snuck up behind him and took his Koran he/ said somethin’ about burnin’ the Koran and I/ was like dude you have no Koran and took off” is the most hilarious accidental verse I ever heard.

Depending on your definition of “hipster,” the question is either laughably precise (“Will tomorrow’s directors be 6’3?”) or ridiculously unhelpful (“Will tomorrow’s directors have nipples?”). Why have we wasted so much time on this thread; and, oh yes, where are you, Johnny?